Eighty-one
villagers from 27 villages in the Upper Malinau River met during a five-day series
of meetings to discuss their needs, create a joint agenda of potential research
topics and learn about mapping as a tool for overcoming boundary and land use
conflicts. The meeting and training were organized by CIFOR in collaboration with
six Indonesian NGOs with skilled in participatory mapping. Eight observers from
local government and company offices also attended the meeting. We used participatory
methods, experiential learning and responsive planning as a basis for workshop
activities.

Using visioning techniques, villagers identified
clean water, protected forest and electricity as their three highest priorities
for the future. Other issues raised included other infrastructural developments
related to transport, irrigation, education and community halls, and agricultural
support such as seed sources and PMDH assistance. The main constraints to achieving
these priorities were no funds, no attention from government or companies, and
a lack of awareness and knowledge among the members of the community. Other main
obstacles included that villagers are not unified among themselves, no maps of
resources or land use are available, there is no certainty or clarity about the
rules or boundaries.

Villagers produced action plans that showed four common
features: the need to (1) report back to their home villages, (2) create an organization
along the entire Malinau that would help unify perceptions, provide coordination
and strengthen their rights, (3) ask help from CIFOR for specific activities such
as how to approach the companies and surveying, and (4) submit proposals to government
and companies.

Based on their visions, constraints and
action plans, as well as an explanation of what CIFOR was and examples of its
programs (BRF generally, RIL, CIMAT and ACM), villagers were asked to provide
suggestions for CIFOR's research agenda. In order of frequency mentioned, these
were: clean water (22 participants), protected forest for the village's benefit
(15), mapping of boundaries among villages and with companies (of forest and village)
(14), condition of the forest's resources (13), conditions of the communities,
their needs, economy and regional economy (9), develop the community (8), approaches
for negotiating with companies and making proposals to them (7), deforestation
and how to guard the forest (6), how to develop a unified citizenry, build an
organization among villages and bring perceptions together, as well as cultivate
adat (4). Other suggestions were mentioned three times or less.

CIFOR
presented a response about how the communities' needs could be furthered through
joint research with CIFOR. CIFOR (from the ACM program perspective) can conduct
research on a cluster of human resource activities related to tools and strategies
for (1) building cooperation (especially among villagers), (2) negotiating and
overcoming conflict, (3) acquiring policy information. In a second cluster of
activities, we can also research tools and strategies for monitoring and better
understanding (4) forest condition, (5) social conditions related to better understanding
their needs, strengthening the communities and the local economy, and (6) boundaries
and land use. CIFOR is not in a position to provide development funding.

During
the mapping training participants learned about the different purposes of maps,
and how to make a sketch map, a scale map, a map that showed real geographic position,
and a map of land use. They learned how to use a compass and GPS, how to measure
distance on a map and the concept of direction and degrees. They learned about
the different parts of maps and how to complete a map with a title, legend, orientation
information etc. They also learned about conflict management related to boundary
determination. We used role playing exercises to explore ways in which the participants
would deliver the information to their villages, and negotiate with companies
and the government.

The overall level of interest and satisfaction
with the workshop seemed to be high. Evidence from seven villages in the first
three days following the workshop suggests that follow-up activities were immediate.
Key lessons learned from the evaluation suggest that we need to be more selective
in finding a mix of old and young participants who can learn mapping skills but
also provide local "policy" and history. It would be desirable to also have a
single main facilitator for the duration of the meeting, and planning among all
of the facilitators well before. More time and repetition would be necessary for
participants to fully absorb the information. Perceptions among the villagers
of what CIFOR is seem to still be variable.